•.	AIR  FORCE  DISCHARGE   REVIEW   BOARD  HEARING   RECORD

...   NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

... lffl 1?11  1 I II

SRA

TYPE GEN	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING

'	'

.---------- -------- ---- ----------- --- ---------------

'---------------------------------   ·

HON
x x x x x

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

ISSUES

A94.06 A94.56 A92. 18
A93. 12

INDEX NUMBER

Al3.00

l	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

04 Ju n 2004
/;J\l>PLf(l
:;.·  •<  "  ,,

FD-2004-00096

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

·----------------	------	--"'7.----	--------------------    -- --------------- :	!
''

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR. EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ  FORM  0-2077, JAN  00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00096	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined to exercise this right.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: The Board grants the requested relief.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of discharge. However, based upon the record and evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the characterization of service inequitable.

ISSUE: After a thorough and complete consideration of the information submitted by the applicant and contained in the records, the Board concluded there was sufficient mitigation to substantiate upgrade of the discharge. Specifically, the Board found the characterization too harsh. However, they did not condone applicant's misconduct.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that the overalJ quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge. The applicant's characterization of service should be changed to Honorable under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief